Why large government is evil and how it is destroying our society

"Government is an unnecessary evil. Human beings, when accustomed to taking responsibility for their own behavior, can cooperate on a basis of mutual trust and helpfulness." -Fred Woodworth, The Match!, No. 79

"The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant and the most rascally individuals of mankind." -Thomas Paine

The general purpose of government is to control the masses and create order in society. People think that a large government is necessary to unite the country, or else people would just run wild killing everyone right? Wrong. This is the first, and most obvious reason that large government can never work:

1. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." -Baron Acton

Looking back through history, this statement can almost be proven. We see kings and dictators who torture their own people and send armies to attack their own people. We have seen a few great leaders in history, but once again very few. If we look in Africa, we can see wealthy people rise to power and tax the people into poverty. Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, all evil people that basically enslave their people and rid them of freedom. So how do such evil people always tend to rise to power? Is it just a coincidence? Or does the act of acquiring so much power corrupts them? So if most humans are incapable of handling a large amount of power, then high power positions are the wrong way to go when governing people.

2. "Government is no further necessary than to supply the few cases to which society and civilization are not conveniently competent... Society performs for itself almost everything that is ascribed to government." -Thomas Paine

This is a quote from Thomas Paine's Liberty and the Great Libertarians. What Thomas Paine is trying to say is that society can practically run itself without government, and should have very limited power over anything. But if government was limited or absent, wouldn't people run wild killing each other and stealing? Hmm oh hey look what I found:

"For upwards of two years from the commencement of the American war, and a longer period in several of the American states, there were no established forms of government. The old governments had been abolished, and the country was too much occupied in defense to employ its attention in establishing new governments; yet, during this interval, order and harmony were preserved as inviolate as in any country in Europe. There is a natural aptness in man, and more so in society, because it embraces a greater variety of abilities and resources, to accommodate itself to whatever situation it is in. The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security."

you can read the full article at: http://mises.org/story/2897

If there wasn't a law that said murder was illegal, you think I'm going to go outside and kill someone? No, first I wouldn't have a reason to go on a random killing spree, and second if I tried to kill someone they would probably try to kill me too, therefore endangering my life. Does murder being illegal actually stop people from killing each other? Not even close. Our jails are packed with murderers serving life sentences. What about meth, if meth was legalized you think everyone would start doing meth? Hell no, people know meth is a horrible drug and they don't need a law to tell them that. And marijuana, it is illegal but millions of people in this country smoke it regardless of its legality.

So really, what is the point of laws? There's a thing called natural laws, laws that aren't prescribed by any government, but laws that people naturally believe are right. People know not to kill, not to steal, etc. But what brings these bad things out is poverty, and poverty is a direct result of the government. Government taxes the hell out of people and fucks with the economy, and almost always ends up ruining it.

3. "In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other." -Benjamin Franklin http://www.usconstitution.net/franklin.html

So democracy is thought to be the best government in the world, but oh hey its Mr. Franklin, one of the founding fathers and... what? He said that this Constitution was only supposed to be a temporary one and will only lead to despotism(form of government by a single authority, either an individual or tightly knit group, which rules with absolute political power). Oh hey there Mr. Bush, Bush Senior, and Jeb Bush.

4. "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -Winston Churchill

A very small percent of the American public is educated on politics and actually knows what they are voting for. And a very large percent doesn't even know what is going on nor has the slightest interest in politics, but they still vote. This makes it very easy for politicians to coat their evil incentives with patriotism and security to win over the votes of the stupid. This is how the Patriot Act was passed. Also, I asked a bunch of Obama supporters in '08 why they were voting for, and almost all of them had no idea what Obama's stances were... Point is, democratic leaders can lie to the public and get full support to do very evil things, cough, cough, Iraq invasion, cough cough.



So Dam Prayer Noobs, if you think you're so damn smart saying that democracy and government sucks, then what do you think should happen?

Easy.

1. Destroy the federal government and let the small ones rule themselves. The larger the government, the more power it has, and the more corrupt it is, and the more people are going to be scared of it and in result not speak out against it. Cities should be the ones with governments, since they are local and the public can participate in it. All these cities would be connected to the market and will trade with each other, etc.

2. Radically change formal education and put more funds into it. Teach kids how to think instead of stuffing their brains with useless facts. This would create more rational voters and less stupid public.

3. There would still be offices like national defense, army, etc. But these offices would run separately, not under the authority of one person or organization. This would lessen the amount of power attributed to one person or persons.

4. Fucking with the economy should be minimal, or not allowed at all. We all saw recently how our government wasted billions of taxpayers dollars in trying to bail out major industries, but they ended up going bankrupt anyway.

 

Cool post, hopefully this will spark some more interesting dialogue than the usual god & weed fare. And mises.org is awesome If you're at all interested in market anarchy/austrian economics check it out. Tons of lectures and articles and books available for free download.
I'm curious how you think we "get" (for lack of a better term) natural rights though? I agree, but I want to see why you think so.

Can you define government in that sense though?

I'm of the thought that since violence is wrong, and the state necessarily uses violence to accomplish it's ends, the state is wrong.

Where would the funds come from?
I'm not into the whole state sponsored and indoctrinating public school system.

 

Government is needed. Just not what we have.

Humans are naturally selfish and evil, and we need to be regulated.

 

What kind of government would you prescribe then? And you don't need a government to regulate human behavior, the market can do that just fine.

 

Thanks for your post, and yes mises.org is awesome lol. I think natural rights is the obvious you know? If you do something in society and there are bad consequences, then don't do it. And the most important natural right should be the right to defend yourself, so people should be allowed to own guns. A good metaphor for this is if all countries had nuclear weapons, it would make each country more weary of using it since it would result in a huge war and casualty rate, since other countries would launch their nukes at the attacking country. The same would happen if everyone would own a gun, the attacker would have less power since he can get shot by any other people. So basically it would be much harder to rob banks, people, etc.

But yeah an example of natural rights, pretend I want some candy so I go steal some, and I get caught and get my ass beat by the store manager. Obviously I would learn to not steal from other people. I talk shit about someone at school and get my ass beat, so I learn to not talk shit about other people. All these lessons should be learned when one's a child and should be taught by parents. So basically I think natural laws are the laws by which you best interact with the people around you.

I'd probably define it as a group of philosophers that get together to debate on complex issues etc. And any citizen can come and contribute to the debates. Elections would probably be held in a large area and each candidate has to give a speech before the audience votes, and that way the people would actually know something about each candidate before they vote. This would exclude stupid voters who have no idea what they are voting for, since you would actually have to care enough to come and listen to the candidates before you vote. I haven't really put much thought into this so these ideas are still in their early stages, so I'm open to suggestions etc. But I think you get the point I'm trying to make; keep the government as powerless as possible.

Correct. I think I'm missing the point though.

Taxes. Unfortunately I don't think we can completely escape being taxed. If there were no taxes then who would build roads and street lights, there would be no one to pick up the trash, who would pay firefighters, public education would not be free therefore kids in poor families wouldn't have an equal opportunity to learn. If we just limit taxes to these things and not have to give taxes to a federal government, taxes would be much much less than what they are now and wouldn't be a problem.

So who is going to regulate the humans that are doing the regulating?

"If human beings are fundamentally good, no government is necessary; if they are fundamentally bad, any government, being composed of human beings, would be bad also." -Fred Woodworth, The Match!, No. 79

"For upwards of two years from the commencement of the American war, and a longer period in several of the American states, there were no established forms of government. The old governments had been abolished, and the country was too much occupied in defense to employ its attention in establishing new governments; yet, during this interval, order and harmony were preserved as inviolate as in any country in Europe. There is a natural aptness in man, and more so in society, because it embraces a greater variety of abilities and resources, to accommodate itself to whatever situation it is in. The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security." -Thomas Paine

So how come people didn't run around stealing and killing each other during these two or so years?

 

A group of citizens without a government will simply get there asses raped by another country. Simply put, we need one.

Size is debatable and it certainly matters, I for anything, am in favor of smaller government.

And if they are neither, this man's words are fucked.

 

Last time i checked, the market doesn't regulate people that kill other people.

 

No government doesn't mean no military. And I don't like this "simply put" bullshit in my thread, either give me a deep explanation and reasoning like I have, or don't post at all.

Either they don't run around stealing and killing each other, or they do. There is no neither.

 

I don't see how that is the market.

 

I would certainly agree that that would be better than what we have previously.
As I'm sure you have noticed, government tends to grow bigger and more powerful as time goes on, especially in democratic states. Why? I think maybe because each person wants to get a bigger slice of the pie.

Didn't you just agree with me that violence was wrong? Carry that thought to its logical end.
Maybe if that doesn't work, try thinking about the economics of it. Government roads are often inefficient and in bad repair. Why? Well they have no competition, there is nobody else providing the service because the government can't go out of business no matter how crappy it's service is. And I think you'll find most people won't want to pay again for private roads.
Think of traffic jams too.
As to the rest of the things you listed, could they not be provided more efficiently and often more cheaply on the market? And if so, wouldn't we all prefer that?

If the government didn't enforce a monopoly on the ability to do so it certainly might. Private security is already very common, as the police are often unable to protect property.

 

this thread is like saying "why our bodies need water"
obviously a large and powerful government was never the intended goal, it was a limited government but since all the geezers are dead, we can't do shit about this

 

You explanations are actually quite shallow. You've pretty much decapitated some of what I consider Sythe's much better explanations.

Military service is what we call a public good. Meaning, it's value is impossible to see on a day to day basis, so given the choice, some people may choose to not pay for it. However, having it, universally protects everyone. Sure, you can form private security firms to deal with local issues with some success - however, international force will easily overcome such. I'd define the above reason as the PRIMARY reason in why no anarchist system has formed.

The second reason I'd be against total deregulation is because of oligarchial monopolies. Businesses that require a high initial investment can easily break the laws of supply and demand by controlling the supply. For example, 1980's, AT&T owned pretty much all the phonelines in the US, and no other company could just "sprout up" because of their dominance and high initial investment (with poor guarantee of success).

By they, you mean us. So according to this logic, if YOU don't steal and kill other people, then no one else will?

Be real man, this is akin to statement such as "All mexicans steal, or they don't".

 

So if you're saying that government roads are often inefficient and most people won't want to pay for private roads, then what is the answer? Something can either be owned privately or it can be owned by the government. Maybe if we make roads a property of the people who own the land close to it, the business or the people living there would care more for it. But for highways, you can either have private highways where you pay to drive them, or you have public highways where everyone pays in taxes. I don't know any other solution.

Some things could be privately owned, but if they were then you would have to pay for them separately. Think of it as insurance, pretend my whole house caught on fire and the fire rescue came and put it out, I would then not only have lost my house, but I would also have to pay the fire rescue for putting out my fire since they are a private company. And if education was private, then kids in poor families would not even have an opportunity to go to school because their parents wouldn't be able to afford it.

I know what a public good is. I never said that there should be no military, I said that the military should not be controlled by a small group of people that have the power to deploy it where ever they want. National defense should decide itself how to defend this country.

Yes I know, the government is at war with Microsoft for that reason. I'm pretty unsure on this topic. The thing is, we already have a government that regulates the economy, and somehow we have corporations like Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, and Frito-Lay which own most of the market. So if we let everything run wild, these giants would control the whole market and we would soon have anarchy. But I truly don't know how to solve this problem.

I'm talking about humans as a whole, as in the majority. There is always going to be a few assholes who try to screw other people, but those people would get their asses kicked since people would be allowed to owned guns.

Being real, the government doesn't have that much effect on what we do. Even with life sentences, people still kill each other. If there was no government there wouldn't be much difference from what we have today, it might even be better since people would take responsibility to defend themselves. And since poverty would probably be lessened from lower taxes, etc. theft and armed robbery would go down.

 

So shoot and kill is ok?

 

I'd say were now delving into the theoretical gray. Personally, I think a government would be the best way to fund public-good projects. I don't know if the government that we are currently under is doing it's best job though. Perhaps a collective money fund, but subcontracted to private corporations. UPS was much more efficient that USPS until recently for example.

Here's where I disagree. The vast majority of problems are caused by a minority of people. If everyone was fundamentally good, anarchy would have a greater chance of success. However, if 1% of people screw around, the whole system can easily get fucked.

 

This isn't a free market unbridled by the government and any company that lays it's foundation even before an AT&T could get to such a point had to paddle through numerous upon numerous government regulations.
Have you looked at how AT&T got started and all of it's interactions with the government?
Think of it this way:
Say there is some wonder product that will cost an absurd amount of money to get it off the ground and started, and X person is the only one who can afford to do so.
So should Scrooge not be able to invest in it? After all, he will certainly have a monopoly for a long time after he does so. Is it better that nobody invests? I think no. A monopoly product is certainly better than no product.

If AT&T, as the only player in the game, started charging so much that people were unhappy, you don't think an entrepreneur might gather venture capital and compete with AT&T?

No, I'm saying that at present most people won't want to pay a second time for access to a road, even if it's superior, because they already "pay" (and by pay I mean are stolen from) for the public roads.

Perhaps if they lead to a city with many shops, the owners might decide to built an maintain a road to it.

What's wrong with that?

If you had insurance why would you have to pay again? And it's not like you don't already pay for fire service. (Actually there are lots of volunteer fire fighters to)

So you're suggesting that taking from other people is ok because it will help the poor? I also think you would find education might be less expensive, and there might specifically be much cheaper schools for poorer families.

huh?
I don't understand the Wal-Mart hate. They bring a vast expanse of cheap products in one place to a community. It saves the consumer from having to decide which different merchants are reliable.

 

Why do we need a national defense? Why is "national defense" superior to a private security firm?

Can you elaborate?

If anything, that's why an anarchy would be better. Decentralization of power. If any of the bad people get into government (and since that's where power is, it naturally attracts some bad people) we're even more screwed, no?

 

You stated that. What would we do with offenders of the law? Would it be ok for these private companys to shoot trespassers?

 

Just because another person steps onto somebody else's property does not mean they surrender all the rights to there body. I think that a person has full ownership on the body, no matter location. That right is, however, proportionally reduced by aggressing. (Is that even a word? lol)

As Rothbard says in The Ethics of Liberty:
"I propose another fundamental rule regarding crime: the criminal, or invader, loses his own right to the extent that he has deprived another man of his. If a man deprives another man of some of his self-ownership or its extension in physical property, to that extent does he lose his own rights. From this principle immediately derives the proportionality theory of punishment-best summed up in the old adage: “let the punishment fit the crime.”"